Leaseholder refusing permission for our dog

[Slagathore]

Jakarta said:

They are subject to the contract with the leashold, they are the party that has given me permission to have a dog in the property as per my contract with them. I do not have a a contract with the leasholder therefore I cannot personally be in breach of a contract I am not party to, nor obliged to be aware of the content.

I think the problem is your agent and landlord have given permission for something they shouldn't have. You'll likely have a standard contract that makes the usual statements about permission for pets etc, but doesn't take in to account the leasehold position of if you are in a flat.

If you have a look in your contract, I'm sure there will be something about having to observe the leasehold obligations for the flat. Or something similar.

I think, but not 100% the leasehold for the flat will trump your AST with the landlord.

[anonymous-user]

I feel for the OP here but I think the only solution is to get the agent to find you alternative suitable accommodation and re-let the place you are currently in at their expense. If the leasehold prevents animals then you really are snookered at the current place.

Whether they will is another matter.

[So]

Jakarta said:

So said:

Gosh.

This is how it works:

The landlord is the leaseholder. He may or may not own a share of the freehold, but it's irrelevant.

The agent is an AGENT for the landlord.

The contract is between the landlord and the tenant.

If the tenancy agreement says that the tenant will ask permission before keeping a dog, then that is what they need to do. If the landlord says no, and the tenant keeps a dog, the tenant is in breach of contract.

Any amount of wishful thinking or posting pictures of the dog won't change that.

I assume you only read the parts of the OP that support your statement and not the part that stated permission must be sought before any pets are permitted, which was duly requested and received before a dog became resident in the property?

Yes I did and I apologise. To be honest I was not replying to your post and only skim read it originally.

[bristoltype603]

Slagathore said:

I think the problem is your agent and landlord have given permission for something they shouldn't have. You'll likely have a standard contract that makes the usual statements about permission for pets etc, but doesn't take in to account the leasehold position of if you are in a flat.

If you have a look in your contract, I'm sure there will be something about having to observe the leasehold obligations for the flat. Or something similar.

I think, but not 100% the leasehold for the flat will trump your AST with the landlord.

^^^This.

IANAL but there is likely to be an indemnity provision in the AST with the landlord (also sometimes called an indemnity chain). This will in effect bind you to the same conditions that your landlord is bound to. So if your landlord's lease says no dog. Then no dogs it is.

[Jakarta]

So said:

Does your tenancy agreement expressly give permission for you to keep animals / a dog.

It expressely states that permission must be sought. This was requested and received before the dog arrived.

[anonymous-user]

Jakarta said:

So said:

Does your tenancy agreement expressly give permission for you to keep animals / a dog.

It expressely states that permission must be sought. This was requested and received before the dog arrived.

That part of the last sentence after the comma is very important though.

[Carbon Sasquatch]

Million dollar question - did the landlord or agent provide approval for the dog IN WRITING ?

If so, then expenses for finding a new place should be down to them.

If not, they'll likely weasel out of it

Either way - start looking....

[So]

Jakarta said:

So said:

Does your tenancy agreement expressly give permission for you to keep animals / a dog.

It expressely states that permission must be sought. This was requested and received before the dog arrived.

How long is the fixed term of the contract?

[Jakg]

Slagathore said:

I think, but not 100% the leasehold for the flat will trump your AST with the landlord.

I don't think one "trumps" the other - especially as the OP wouldn't have signed, or probably even seen, the leasehold. Much the same as you have no idea what mortgage terms might've been applied.

The easiest solution is to evict the tenant though, unfortunately - seeing as the break clause is in the contract.

[paintman]

You've rented from a landlord who is only a leaseholder of the property.
They in turn will have an agreement with their landlord - the freeholder.
If that agreement doesn't allow something then they can't give you permission to do that something.

[anonymous-user]

Even if he gave permission the leaseholder (who the OP is renting from) would probably be breaching the terms of his lease with the freeholder.

My freehold leases even had "what could and couldn't be put under the sinks" and I had a similar problem with bikes being left on landings....probably a bit OT but many leaseholders don't realise they only rent the property not own it and ultimately the freeholder says what does and doesn't happen.

[Slagathore]

Jakg said:

don't think one "trumps" the other - especially as the OP wouldn't have signed, or probably even seen, the leasehold. Much the same as you have no idea what mortgage terms might've been applied.

The easiest solution is to evict the tenant though, unfortunately - seeing as the break clause is in the contract.

Like I said, I don't know for sure, but it's really irrelevant for the OP's situation anyway, because the landlord did no have authority to tell the OP he could have a dog in the flat if it is prohibited in his leasehold agreement. The landlord should have checked and been aware of that before telling the OP he could have on in the flat.

Just because the OP isn't the leaseholder, it doesn't mean he can ignore the rules of the leaseholder agreement.

I would argue it's the landlord's fault and it's up to him to fix. So if the OP has to move, then the landlord should be responsible for the costs/fees. How that will play out in reality may be very different.

[anonymous-user]

Slagathore said:

Like I said, I don't know for sure, but it's really irrelevant for the OP's situation anyway, because the landlord did no have authority to tell the OP he could have a dog in the flat if it is prohibited in his leasehold agreement. The landlord should have checked and been aware of that before telling the OP he could have on in the flat.

Just because the OP isn't the leaseholder, it doesn't mean he can ignore the rules of the leaseholder agreement.

I would argue it's the landlord's fault and it's up to him to fix. So if the OP has to move, then the landlord should be responsible for the costs/fees. How that will play out in reality may be very different.

Is there an Ombudsman or similar for letting agents?

[Slagathore]

catweasle said:

Is there an Ombudsman or similar for letting agents?

I think there's a couple and the agents have to be registered with one.

I guess the agents are at fault as well, they should be aware the leasehold may not allow pets in the flat and perhaps should have advised the landlord as to such and that he should check before agreeing.

[anonymous-user]

Slagathore said:

catweasle said:

Is there an Ombudsman or similar for letting agents?

I think there's a couple and the agents have to be registered with one.

I guess the agents are at fault as well, they should be aware the leasehold may not allow pets in the flat and perhaps should have advised the landlord as to such and that he should check before agreeing.

My reading is that the agent gave permission without checking with anybody....could be wrong though.

[Algarve]

If there's 'no dogs' in the agreement that your landlord didn't read or understand, and you've got a neighbour who despises dogs... you're going to be moving house.

The owner / agent won't want that to try and get rid of a difficult tenant so you just really need to go negotiate what exactly you want to go quietly. They'll not want to have to try and evict you when you say you don't care and aren't moving out till you can find somewhere else to stay. They'll be worried about damage, lack of rent, etc etc. I'd hope they'd be willing to negotiate a quick and easy way out of this too.

[Slagathore]

catweasle said:

My reading is that the agent gave permission without checking with anybody....could be wrong though.

OP posted a link to the clause in the contract that says permission from the landlord is required. I took that as the agents had checked with the LL.

Either way, the agent or landlord have messed up, so starting with one of the ombudsman should be a good way to focus their minds.

If it was the agents that said yes without checking with the landlord, then I'd be expecting them to sort it.

[DanL]

Jakarta said:

The particularly helpful neighbour also had the terms of the leasehold amended so that no resident could have hard flooring by virtue of the fact she could hear people walking around.

No pets and no hard floors are both quite common clauses in leasehold flats (in my limited experience).

Odds are the landlord will have no choice except to ask you to rehome the dog or leave the flat, assuming there is a no pets clause in the leasehold of the flat.

If they’ve granted permission to you to have a dog, this is a problem for them...

[Europa1]

Slagathore said:

OP posted a link to the clause in the contract that says permission from the landlord is required. I took that as the agents had checked with the LL.

Either way, the agent or landlord have messed up, so starting with one of the ombudsman should be a good way to focus their minds.

If it was the agents that said yes without checking with the landlord, then I'd be expecting them to sort it.

That was the agreement between OP and his immediate landlord, and that permission was sought and obtained. The problem is that the agreement between the immediate landlord and the superior landlord forbids dogs. So, OP's immediate landlord was giving a permission that was not theirs to give. Both the immediate landlord and the agent have cocked up.

[So]

Europa1 said:

That was the agreement between OP and his immediate landlord, and that permission was sought and obtained. The problem is that the agreement between the immediate landlord and the superior landlord forbids dogs. So, OP's immediate landlord was giving a permission that was not theirs to give. Both the immediate landlord and the agent have cocked up.

Providing they haven't cocked up in any other regard, and the fixed term isn't lengthy, a S.21 should remedy the situation for the landlord. Tough on the OP however. If they have cocked up in such a way that a S.21 cannot be served I should think it could become messy.